Mitt Romney believes that his best line of attack is making the claim that he has not spent a moment as a D.C. politician while his two main opponents, Newt ...
No two ways about it, Rick Santorum had a good night. Not only did he sweep Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri but he also got off the best line of the ...
Few would argue the fact that Citizens United has been a major player in the Republican primary...and many if not most would concede that none of it has been healthy ...
As if you needed another reason to not vote Romney.
Celebrity business magnate Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for president Thursday, telling reporters he will not mount an independent campaign if ...
In a perfect world, the Republican contest to find a nominee to face Barack Obama would go on forever...or at least until August. You cannot attach a number to the ...
I suspect there are a ton of conservatives secretly agreeing with Begala and while it's too early in the game for Dems to get cocky, it's difficult to not smile ...
Quotes don't get much better than this one by Bob Dole.
"Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" asked a perplexed Gingrich, to whom Dole bluntly ...
After the beating Gingrich took last night, it's hard to imagine under what scenario he can make a comeback. Florida is going to Romney and for Gingrich to regain the ...
There's a lot out there on the President's SOTU, so I'll keep my thoughts short and sweet.
The speech did what it had to do which was target liberals and independents ...
The highlights from last night's debate.
- Newt Gingrich can't wait to become president so he can revisit the early 60s and overthrow Castro in Cuba. War, baby, war.
- Santorum, who ...
It appears that the South Carolina verdict is forcing Romney to start taking Gingrich seriously.
“We’re not choosing a talk show host, we’re choosing a leader,” Romney said, saying that their ...
Mike Huckabee offers advice to Mitt Romney concerning his unreleased tax returns.
Let him [Romney] make this challenge: "I'll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and ...
Via Political Humor...
"Mitt Romney is coming under fire because even though he is a multimillionaire, he only paid 15 percent in taxes. That's not a tax, that's barely a tip." ...
Good line.
My guess is that after Romney fails to beat Obama in the general, Huntsman will be back in 2016. The most electable guy in the field and he could ...
I found this pretty funny...and accurate. It comes from a reader over at Balloon Juice.
So, let’s review. The contenders for the GOP nomination are
A vulture capitalist who believes that any ...
Lively little debate going on at one of last week's posts with Libertarianism put under the microscope.
ocLiberal:
I know I am in sketchy territory here, (start the indignant shouting now) but ...
In the contest to determine the winner of the Far-Right Politics gold medal, rack up a few more points for Newt Gingrich.
“I think an intelligent conservative wants the right federal ...
Via Political Humor...
"Congratulations to Mitt Romney. He won the New Hampshire primary last night. See, this is proof that even the multimillionaire son of a multimillionaire can beat the odds ...
Story 1:
North Korea punishing those who 'didn't display enough sadness over Kim Jong Il's death'
North Korean authorities are reportedly punishing citizens who did not display enough sadness over the death ...
Make what you will from the following talking point used by Republican Representative Mike Pence. He was warning his audience of the dreadful consequences should health care reform come to pass.
“Once the American public becomes dependent on the federal government during that most vulnerable moment of illness of a loved one, a spouse, a parent, a child, a grandchild, those on the elite leadership of the left know…they’ll never let it [public healthcare] go.”
Good point, Mikey. Much more honorable, I imagine, for a parent to watch their 5-year old daughter die because some health insurance flunky patriot deemed their child’s illness a preexisting condition than to allow the government to pass legislation which would disallow ANY health insurer from EVER canceling a policy over a preexisting condition.
Stupid elitist libruls caring about your loved ones, parents, spouses, children and grandchildren. How dare they. Much smarter to let your loved ones die needlessly than to cave in to elitist propaganda.
___
To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s fan page by clicking here or to receive email notifications of new posts, click on Subscribe. .
The way liberal elitist is said in such sneering tones, as if it is some how a dirty thing to value learning, art, culture, spirituality,
anything with a smattering of refinement…my god, it reminds me of ancient Roman times when it was great fun to sit back and watch bloody battles to the death as entertainment.
Julia. Don’t be surprised. It’s the republican way to criticize anything which has the slightest hint of compassion or caring about anyone but ourselves. In their view, corporate interests must always triumph over those of the people.
Oh, intellectually i know that, but it just astounds me that sane people could sneer at the things which make us “libruls” but I forget sometimes how they worship at the altars of money and greed above all else.
I value learning, art, culture, and spirituality, but I don’t call myself a liberal. I also value God and country, but I don’t call myself a conservative.
Liberals are elitist in that they think they’re smarter than the average person. So are (religious) conservatives. Both of them believe that their vision of our society’s future is better than what we currently have. Both of them are willing to force others to believe what they believe in order to advance their vision.
The vast majority of people in this country just want to live and let live. That’s hard to do when the government is breathing down our necks with more and more regulations, and our thoughts and actions are being judged by people with “better” moral compasses.
The liberals I know don’t think they are smarter than the average person, they are average people, living their lives. Everyone has a differing world view or vision of our society’s future. Grouping all liberals into an elitist category doesn’t further discussion.
Pane fails on liberal philosophy.
Liberals are those who favor progress,
Are protective of civil liberty
Are characterised by broad-mindedess
Are willing to give themselves to be free
Would never subject anyone to duress,
See change and what’s new as possibility
Respect traditions from both others and us
This, the true liberal philosophy
That our founding fathers came to profess
As they formed a nation of liberty.
Nobel comments Dan, but are you insinuating that only liberals possess those traits? Are those traits exclusive to the liberal breed? I have many of those traits, and I’m not a liberal.
So what’s left? If a specific set of humanistic traits doesn’t define liberalism, what does?
I’ll refer back to my original comment, “Liberals are elitist in that they think they’re smarter than the average person.” You think being liberal makes you better than others, which is why you use only positive traits to define your political identity.
But I agree with you about demonizing other humans. So…
If liberals favor progress, does no one else?
If liberals are protective of civil liberty, why do they propose more regulations than conservatives?
If liberals are broad-minded, why do they promote an air of political correctness in which our free expression is suppressed?
In what way are liberals willing to give themselves to be free? For the most part, they’re anti-war.
If liberals never subject anyone to duress, what do you call high taxes, over regulation, and political correctness?
Everyone sees change and what’s new as a possibility. That’s such a generic statement, even I want to judge it.
Liberals respect traditions, except church weddings involving only men and women.
Don’t get me wrong Dan. I believe that the right side of street isn’t any better. They want to control the human population as much as any liberal. They just want to make a profit while doing it.
Very interesting conversation. Might I suggest that someone define liberal and conservative without branding them? We, and I mean all of us, have given into the branding; whoever said “conservatives” don’t support the arts? Since when does being anti-war preclude giving of oneself to be free? Gandhi and Christ seemed to see the value in sacrificing oneself in the face of violence to attain freedom; it is a point to consider at any rate. My parents are liberals (in the Carter mold mind you!), and they believe very strongly in church weddings and the nearly 40 year marriages that follow. I am a liberal and a capitalist; the two are not mutually exclusive. I simply believe that the government is the people’s voice in the marketplace. What is over-regulation and how high is high on taxes? I would argue that the critical elements involved in judging taxation and regulation is the net benefit to society. “Conservatives” tend to believe that taxation is very good when it pays for the best military in the world (and I agree), but “the market” does not do several things very well, so I am glad for the high taxes that paid for things like the interstate highway system. I don’t want to be told how much break time for my employees is enough, but I am glad when “the government” insists that food companies follow clean process and label their products. We all value big government when it happens to perfectly align with a sacred interest that we hold dear; it is other people’s big government that wrinkles our brows.
“…it is other people’s big government that wrinkles our brows.”
Excellent point, Michael. I agree.
“If liberals are broad-minded, why do they promote an air of political correctness in which our free expression is suppressed?”
Tommy, exactly where and how have “liberals” suppressed free expression? Certainly you’re not equating criticism of teabaggers, for example, with suppression of anything, are you?
And while you’re at it, what freedoms specifically have you lost under Obama?
Traditions give insight, not law
If so, then the Bible would guide us all:
Multiple wives would heed my call,
And my slaves would before me crawl.
I would rape my foes’ daughters, wives
Those not my faith would lose their lives
With stones I’d gladly sacrifice
Adulterers, partners in vice.
Girls not virgins on wedding nights
Would taste their blood where stones would bite
Give my daughters for sex delight
To a mob to avoid a fight
And like Lott if I lost my sight
I’d have sex with them that same night
Because the Bible says that it’s right,
And we know tradition is right
Like when Jesus himself has said,
“Stone your children until they’re dead
If they love you more than me.” Dead
With blood streaming from shattered heads.
All I have said is true, just read,
Blind obedience to faith and creed
Has sanctioned many a bad deed
Sometimes change is what we all need.
Ask Rahm Emanuel if he’ll ever use the work “retard” again.
I don’t have to repeat myself Mario. I’ve stated many times where I stand with regard to government’s expansion being a detriment to individual freedom. As more money is taken from the private sector in order to support the public sector, it strips resources from individuals, thus limiting their choices.
Honestly Mario, sometimes I think you defend liberals out of habit more than anything else. They have flaws. So do conservatives. To rail one against the other just promotes conflict.
@Tommy. You were asked a simple question. What specific freedoms have you lost under Obama. You have chosen to not answer. Ok.
I have never claimed that liberals don’t have flaws. It is a matter of looking at both sides and coming to the easy conclusion that one party promotes a progressive forward-looking ideology while the other is mired in a backwards, antiquated, fear-mongering, dishonest ideology which favors one segment of the population over the other.
You can disagree with me but if you think that allowing conservatives and Republicans to lie at their hearts content without calling them out on those very lies is the way to go…well, I don’t think so. Just ask John Kerry what happened when he kept silent for so long when swift-boated.
You like to equate the two parties as being the same. In my opinion, that’s complete nonsense. While both are flawed to some extent, the current brand of politics practiced by Republicans is the most detrimental part of America.
And finally: what specific freedoms have you lost under Obama?
Tommy, without trying to be condescending, I hear your arguments. My specific challenge would be twofold; the burden in real dollars (in terms of federal taxation) has fallen over the last thirty years as an aggregate, and your argument regarding individual freedoms is less firm than others I have seen you make. Rahm Emanuel was not prosecuted for using the word retard, nor has Rush Limbaugh be punished for anything he has said. Freedom has never meant “freedom from criticism”. An argument against political correctness, despite the “political” in the phrase, is in itself a criticism of another’s speech. I would also note that the most egregious attacks on personal freedoms have come from Republicans; the reason (or justification, depending on your point of view) does not mitigate the fact. Habious Corpus, due process, search and seizure; all are protections of individual freedom that have been eroded by the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act, and a series of Bush-era executive orders. Again, the reason for the legislation does not change the facts regarding a loss of freedom; it proves (I think) a point that what is sacred to a party necessarily changes with one’s perspective. Again, Republicans long identified with “fiscal responsibility”, but the liberal Bill Clinton was the president who balanced the budget last. I simply believe that many of the claims of passion held by Republicans go unsupported by actions; because of this, their party is able to act unilaterally to defeat an agenda while the Democrats are busy looking at the legislation for its merits.
“What specific freedoms have you lost under Obama.”
I’ve never named Obama’s as the source of our economic restrictions. My understanding of how government can mess with my economic free will came two years after I voted for Carter. It was clear to me then that “well meaning” government policies can negatively affect the free market, hence my wallet.
I respect your comments more than any other poster on this blog Michael. However, the balanced budget of Clinton was a result of huge tax revenues because of the tech bubble of the late 90′s, in conjunction with a fiscally responsible republican congress in charge of spending the money.
The way liberal elitist is said in such sneering tones, as if it is some how a dirty thing to value learning, art, culture, spirituality,
anything with a smattering of refinement…my god, it reminds me of ancient Roman times when it was great fun to sit back and watch bloody battles to the death as entertainment.
Julia. Don’t be surprised. It’s the republican way to criticize anything which has the slightest hint of compassion or caring about anyone but ourselves. In their view, corporate interests must always triumph over those of the people.
Oh, intellectually i know that, but it just astounds me that sane people could sneer at the things which make us “libruls” but I forget sometimes how they worship at the altars of money and greed above all else.
barbarians.
Julia -
I value learning, art, culture, and spirituality, but I don’t call myself a liberal. I also value God and country, but I don’t call myself a conservative.
Liberals are elitist in that they think they’re smarter than the average person. So are (religious) conservatives. Both of them believe that their vision of our society’s future is better than what we currently have. Both of them are willing to force others to believe what they believe in order to advance their vision.
The vast majority of people in this country just want to live and let live. That’s hard to do when the government is breathing down our necks with more and more regulations, and our thoughts and actions are being judged by people with “better” moral compasses.
The liberals I know don’t think they are smarter than the average person, they are average people, living their lives. Everyone has a differing world view or vision of our society’s future. Grouping all liberals into an elitist category doesn’t further discussion.
Pane fails on liberal philosophy.
Liberals are those who favor progress,
Are protective of civil liberty
Are characterised by broad-mindedess
Are willing to give themselves to be free
Would never subject anyone to duress,
See change and what’s new as possibility
Respect traditions from both others and us
This, the true liberal philosophy
That our founding fathers came to profess
As they formed a nation of liberty.
http://www.CitizenPoet.com
Demonizing other humans,
Makes the demonizers demons.
@Dan Speers,
Brilliant
Nobel comments Dan, but are you insinuating that only liberals possess those traits? Are those traits exclusive to the liberal breed? I have many of those traits, and I’m not a liberal.
So what’s left? If a specific set of humanistic traits doesn’t define liberalism, what does?
I’ll refer back to my original comment, “Liberals are elitist in that they think they’re smarter than the average person.” You think being liberal makes you better than others, which is why you use only positive traits to define your political identity.
But I agree with you about demonizing other humans. So…
If liberals favor progress, does no one else?
If liberals are protective of civil liberty, why do they propose more regulations than conservatives?
If liberals are broad-minded, why do they promote an air of political correctness in which our free expression is suppressed?
In what way are liberals willing to give themselves to be free? For the most part, they’re anti-war.
If liberals never subject anyone to duress, what do you call high taxes, over regulation, and political correctness?
Everyone sees change and what’s new as a possibility. That’s such a generic statement, even I want to judge it.
Liberals respect traditions, except church weddings involving only men and women.
Don’t get me wrong Dan. I believe that the right side of street isn’t any better. They want to control the human population as much as any liberal. They just want to make a profit while doing it.
Very interesting conversation. Might I suggest that someone define liberal and conservative without branding them? We, and I mean all of us, have given into the branding; whoever said “conservatives” don’t support the arts? Since when does being anti-war preclude giving of oneself to be free? Gandhi and Christ seemed to see the value in sacrificing oneself in the face of violence to attain freedom; it is a point to consider at any rate. My parents are liberals (in the Carter mold mind you!), and they believe very strongly in church weddings and the nearly 40 year marriages that follow. I am a liberal and a capitalist; the two are not mutually exclusive. I simply believe that the government is the people’s voice in the marketplace. What is over-regulation and how high is high on taxes? I would argue that the critical elements involved in judging taxation and regulation is the net benefit to society. “Conservatives” tend to believe that taxation is very good when it pays for the best military in the world (and I agree), but “the market” does not do several things very well, so I am glad for the high taxes that paid for things like the interstate highway system. I don’t want to be told how much break time for my employees is enough, but I am glad when “the government” insists that food companies follow clean process and label their products. We all value big government when it happens to perfectly align with a sacred interest that we hold dear; it is other people’s big government that wrinkles our brows.
“…it is other people’s big government that wrinkles our brows.”
Excellent point, Michael. I agree.
“If liberals are broad-minded, why do they promote an air of political correctness in which our free expression is suppressed?”
Tommy, exactly where and how have “liberals” suppressed free expression? Certainly you’re not equating criticism of teabaggers, for example, with suppression of anything, are you?
And while you’re at it, what freedoms specifically have you lost under Obama?
Traditions give insight, not law
If so, then the Bible would guide us all:
Multiple wives would heed my call,
And my slaves would before me crawl.
I would rape my foes’ daughters, wives
Those not my faith would lose their lives
With stones I’d gladly sacrifice
Adulterers, partners in vice.
Girls not virgins on wedding nights
Would taste their blood where stones would bite
Give my daughters for sex delight
To a mob to avoid a fight
And like Lott if I lost my sight
I’d have sex with them that same night
Because the Bible says that it’s right,
And we know tradition is right
Like when Jesus himself has said,
“Stone your children until they’re dead
If they love you more than me.” Dead
With blood streaming from shattered heads.
All I have said is true, just read,
Blind obedience to faith and creed
Has sanctioned many a bad deed
Sometimes change is what we all need.
http://www.CitizenPoet.com
False indictments no truth have brought
They just reveal a lack of thought.
Ask Rahm Emanuel if he’ll ever use the work “retard” again.
I don’t have to repeat myself Mario. I’ve stated many times where I stand with regard to government’s expansion being a detriment to individual freedom. As more money is taken from the private sector in order to support the public sector, it strips resources from individuals, thus limiting their choices.
Honestly Mario, sometimes I think you defend liberals out of habit more than anything else. They have flaws. So do conservatives. To rail one against the other just promotes conflict.
@Tommy. You were asked a simple question. What specific freedoms have you lost under Obama. You have chosen to not answer. Ok.
I have never claimed that liberals don’t have flaws. It is a matter of looking at both sides and coming to the easy conclusion that one party promotes a progressive forward-looking ideology while the other is mired in a backwards, antiquated, fear-mongering, dishonest ideology which favors one segment of the population over the other.
You can disagree with me but if you think that allowing conservatives and Republicans to lie at their hearts content without calling them out on those very lies is the way to go…well, I don’t think so. Just ask John Kerry what happened when he kept silent for so long when swift-boated.
You like to equate the two parties as being the same. In my opinion, that’s complete nonsense. While both are flawed to some extent, the current brand of politics practiced by Republicans is the most detrimental part of America.
And finally: what specific freedoms have you lost under Obama?
Tommy, without trying to be condescending, I hear your arguments. My specific challenge would be twofold; the burden in real dollars (in terms of federal taxation) has fallen over the last thirty years as an aggregate, and your argument regarding individual freedoms is less firm than others I have seen you make. Rahm Emanuel was not prosecuted for using the word retard, nor has Rush Limbaugh be punished for anything he has said. Freedom has never meant “freedom from criticism”. An argument against political correctness, despite the “political” in the phrase, is in itself a criticism of another’s speech. I would also note that the most egregious attacks on personal freedoms have come from Republicans; the reason (or justification, depending on your point of view) does not mitigate the fact. Habious Corpus, due process, search and seizure; all are protections of individual freedom that have been eroded by the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act, and a series of Bush-era executive orders. Again, the reason for the legislation does not change the facts regarding a loss of freedom; it proves (I think) a point that what is sacred to a party necessarily changes with one’s perspective. Again, Republicans long identified with “fiscal responsibility”, but the liberal Bill Clinton was the president who balanced the budget last. I simply believe that many of the claims of passion held by Republicans go unsupported by actions; because of this, their party is able to act unilaterally to defeat an agenda while the Democrats are busy looking at the legislation for its merits.
“What specific freedoms have you lost under Obama.”
I’ve never named Obama’s as the source of our economic restrictions. My understanding of how government can mess with my economic free will came two years after I voted for Carter. It was clear to me then that “well meaning” government policies can negatively affect the free market, hence my wallet.
I respect your comments more than any other poster on this blog Michael. However, the balanced budget of Clinton was a result of huge tax revenues because of the tech bubble of the late 90′s, in conjunction with a fiscally responsible republican congress in charge of spending the money.